Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 17, 2014 5:30pm-6:01pm PDT

5:30 pm
yard as denied in the planning code as pointed out there's an interpretation of the planning code that's been adapted over the years r&d a city council gent view when a building is set back with regards to the application i'll point out they proposed for their alternative that has a c shaped building that itself is not compiling with the appellants interpretation that central courtyard as noted further it states thatarea-
5:31 pm
it's something that the commission struggled with there should be changes to the project deferring opinions that was
5:32 pm
continued for several hearings for the sponsor to work with the department some changes were proposed and ultimately at the place planning commission hamburger no concession on the direction to move forward and because of that any failure will result in the project no discretionary review was taken and the project move forward that's the brief summary of the project as i say to the excision i think you already know even if a project is code compliant the board of appeals are will have the discretion do make the changes the excision choose not to make changes some reason proposed by itself project sponsor but didn't go to the extent that the appellant wanted to have i'm available for
5:33 pm
questions. >> have you confirmed that the two or three changes that did project sponsor made after the dr hearing were incorporated into this set we have and i believe see because the real issue the significant issues with the planning commission was the amount of notch and how many levels the notch was from reviewing the plans it appears what they've proposed prior to that hearing has been incorporated into the plans. >> that was one anticipate the height of the sill of the windows. >> so, yeah. >> did you look at that. >> on the proposed fte elevation those changes do purview to be nofrptd yes. >> you attended all the
5:34 pm
meetings at planning the 3. >> i believe so i was definitely there for the it out of 3. >> those two changes there was a third one i can't remember they reflected the more moderate feeling of the planning commission; is that correct. >> correct a vast of opinions on the project the debates were the department of that set back and was their proposal to have the set back more from the side property line that was one issue that the commission had discussions and also the extent the number of stories that that notch features so those were as i recall two of the issues and commissioner moore wanted to see a more significant from the side property line and also to a
5:35 pm
lower level than proposing that's my recollection. >> the last thing i'm not sure why the ada question came up in discussion related to accommodations for that you know the design is either assessable or not. >> so that's the knowledge of that evolved over time in terms of reasonable accomodation requests often those come in the requests of the planning code like an elevator they're not seek an exception in the code requirement but seung in terms of why the interior is that a couldn't be made smaller is because that will reduce the
5:36 pm
size of the bathroom at the lower level which is intended to be assessable. >> except the way those bathrooms are laid out they're not assessable. >> we don't implement ada requirements it's something that the project sponsor needed for their needs and so certainly i understand this board may have expertise are wisdom that will shed light. >> excuse me. mr. sanchez so looking at the plans i'm not an architect so was the requirement for the side yard set backs. >> so there is the requirement for a side yard set back the requirement there this zoning district given a front yard or
5:37 pm
side yard there's no code for the side yard that helps to address the censures is of the dr requester that set back made the project xriept with the residential guidelines. >> you can build on the side. >> correct go in n this district yes. >> but this was something we wanted to see for design concerns. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. duffy has indicated he has nothing to say unless the board has questions public comment can i see a show of hands how many people plan on speaking opium if you could line up on the side of the wall the wanting has indicated a one minute timeframe. >> two minutes. >> two minutes okay. >> he'll be back in one minute
5:38 pm
public school two minutes commissioner president lazarus that's because of the hour if you haven't filed out a speaker card please do that and hand is to mr. pacheco but please wait until commissioner fung returns to start your comments thank y to but please wait until commissioner fung returns to start your comments thank t to but please wait until commissioner fung returns to start your comments thank you.
5:39 pm
>> okay. ready to start? per go ahead. >> good evening. i'm corey bash to read a letter. >> sorry you are a relative i believe of the permit holder. >> your time will speak under the time allocated to the permit holder. >> thank you >> next speaker. >> is there anyone else that wants to speak i thought there was a lot of people a moment ago i asked for that, yes. >> good evening. i'm howard emancipation proclamation seen a
5:40 pm
property owner if the coal valley area over 20 years in the material you've been given everything about this project is code xrient and underground scrutiny i stand here shaking my head in disbelief all the departments are thoroughly reviewed and approved those plans the dollars to skyline a single-family home is now dragged on for an hour and a half i'm amazed by the appellants resident proposal to gut those house to the half the square feet or to a more modest for gutting it i know that tie and monthly i didn't has given all the consideration nothing of
5:41 pm
strib their home i've reviewed the plans i think that light well set back they've proposed is accommodating a lot of the thing is very, very generous considering some of the claims seem unwarned for the past several years san francisco has been equipping many street corners with handicap ramps and trying to keep those folks in san francisco it is a strong proposal that folks should be xhoomd those are appellants have an ax to grind a personal have an detective do not let the bitter wishes trumpet the needs of someone who is physically disabled this is a devastating
5:42 pm
disable i ask you allow them to build their home as demand. >> if your planning to speak continue to line up on the other side your blocking access that's not allowed thank you. >> good evening commissioners and chris my wife and i are in the process of building a home it should come as no surprises the individuals that oppose tie and molly have the same folks that tried to stop my building my house i can't imagine what may find people to try to stop someone from building that has a
5:43 pm
handicap why write a 20-year brief and not have plans i'm disheartened with the people with those visions are my neighbors as well tie and molly have enough on their plate with respect to ties disability it is designed to modify with numerous considerations to their neighborhoods concerns over light and air including a generous side yard set back my cohorts are detailed tie and moll i didn't see condition and add costs to tie and molly as well as abuse the city processes and waste the cities resources i ask you to approve that project the appellants appeal should be
5:44 pm
denied vote numbing to uphold the permit thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is kirk scott i live on ashbury i'm asking you ask asking you to deny the appeal and let the project go forward i believe this project represents a great deal of change both in terms of addressing light and privacy there are side set back on the north and setting a side set back and rear yard there's now this quite generous inverted wedding cake that will allow a great deal of light and air into the appellants yards and i think that the main impact existed in the project existed with the house was built at the
5:45 pm
rear portion of the lot the privacy impacts have also been there and the shading the project will to the propose a height go they're basically filling in a streetscape i urge you to deny the appeal and let the project move forward and hope to welcome tie and molly to the neighborhood soon thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> hi good evening my name is barn i live at 1092 the front unit of building next to tie and michelles building my bedroom faces across the court
5:46 pm
yard to say i'm a visible person this is an assault this is my home by no means i've north envelope met those people inns i'm sure you're very nice people the appellants i don't have a vendetta i'd rather be finishing up my work as you saw in the picture there is a significant impact on the sun shining into my bedroom i've worked hard to afford my the home in san francisco what could have been a reasonably resolved situation at the beginning i think a lot of that could be avoided who want
5:47 pm
to come a e to a compromised. >> how long have you lived on the property. >> may 2012 my first one was 3,000 square foot e square feet. >> where there's meeting that were held to discuss with you. >> this is the first disconnect you involvement till when i first saw the plans i thought great as an property owner i'm happy to see people use their property in a way they feel fit but as an existing owner in the neighborhood we have balance that's why we have commissions like this. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners. i'm
5:48 pm
speaking on for hugh diamond open ashbury street wouldn't be here i'm here to obtain to the proposed structure it's not consistent with the homes of the. >> excuse me. pull the microphone closer. >> overwhelm here to obtain to the proposed edition on ashbury streets it's not consistent with nearby homes none of the homes are had he feels they have substantially more rear yard i'm concerned the lack of the neighbors plight and privacy open my side of ashbury in april
5:49 pm
we don't get sun until it wraps around the hillside and if the building goes through the subject height of that goliath project creates a huge wall and windows fatiguing their yards this is not acceptable and sets a dangerous precedent on our rights i agree that the owners should have the rights to expand the properties by not at the expels - expense of the neighborhood thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioner i'm dave ryan may i have the projector the proposed culture is not
5:50 pm
consistent with the neighborhood the culture of this neighborhood is not one of 4 to 5 story building more like 80 percent all buildings near the project site across the strts street on clayton or more than p than 3 stories halfway up the block is 4 story we look at exhibit 7 here's the subject property here the sole - open a row of 3 story houses the project site being make in the central it's colored as four stories but break the 3 story pattern all but a few properties on clayton and
5:51 pm
ashbury have yards between 25 and 45 percent of their lots and the anti layers are multiple family structures regarding a 45 percent lot and none of the upper terrace have smaller graders or yards the yards are 80 so steep they can't be used for development on ashbury street shouldn't there be a trade off if i have a rear yard development trading off space i and my neighbors have asked you to reduce this project that is a ridiculous amount of conform on that lot i ask fewer consideration of this. >> thank you.
5:52 pm
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> name is romanian restraining order hospital i'm speaking for the owner of unit one he couldn't be here he ask me to read this i have reviewed the plan for ashbury and concerned about the building and shadow studies have shown the fourth story about block sunlight to the rear unit and the rear yard for more than 3 months every year we have a flowering trees that rerely open sunlight and the proposed edition will result in a complete loss of sunlight into the rear months and it will drastic change our rear yard another major concern we've had a mold problem in the rear of
5:53 pm
the building and the shadow studies show the new studies will show the blockage and significantly increase the mold in the rear building first, the building will cover the majority of lot where buildings have 25 percent open space and second the just a minute homes are 3 stories the edition needed to be downsized to address the light and privacy issues and make the building more in line with the neighborhood i believe they should be allowed to expand but also to take into account the neighbors and they have b have a beautiful existing home while preserving the neighborhood character. >> thank you.
5:54 pm
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners i'm a 15 year resident of inform and times to talk about the editions i've known tie he's warm and thoughtful and someone that brings people together for year and years he's had a sunday night dinner and cooked feeding food for etch that shows up often the neighbors and stranger i know of his condition and even if he can't continue with those tradition of those events i'm sure molly will bring people together including this neighbors to become better friends a year ago tie called me about this property he purchased he i was excited about how he
5:55 pm
found a home that he and molly could spent spend the rest of mar their life and he probably spent an hour talking about how well, the environmentalist that didn't surprise me he is anyone that cares about community and the neighborhood and the feelings those things notion so this property this edition to the property will do all that but allow them of him to live in that by providing the handicap things he needs i want to say 4 years ago when tie was diagnosed he told few of us he lives for the positive it of life the fact he's talking about that openly at this hearing is a sign the
5:56 pm
designation on his part tie is a person i'd a lot to be like if you were face with this situation i hope you lowest tie and molly live in the home and bring together the joys with their families and friends. >> is there any additional public comment seeping we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellants. >> limited building envelope changes the permit holders did make were at the direction of the planning commission at the end of the second hearing permit holders attempt it have you believe they voluntarily made the changes pause the oral direction in the planning commission was not attached to the formal planning it was the excision that sent the changes
5:57 pm
they didn't satisfy the commissioners i want to talk about what happened at the third and final planning commission hearing the financial truth is commissioner antonini made a motion to make dr commissioner antonini made a motion to take dr and reduce the central portion by one foot and raise the windows to 36 inches commissioner wu and commissioner moore and commissioner hillis and commissioner fong voted no and commissioner moore's and commissioner johnck and commissioner fong said they didn't support the project so you had 6 commissioners who want this project changed the plans before the commission were the same envelope plans before you tonight
5:58 pm
so there will be no further misunderstanding the coordinators were produced in a certified transcript of the hearing the copy were sealed in an envelope with the original signatures should you decide to accept it i have a number of copies with highlights that i'm going to read from until i run out of time do you have a copy for the planning department? well, the document is new the words is in the part of the administrative record and available o'ly want to emphasize from the transcript no doubt at least 6 commissioners wanted
5:59 pm
this envelope us reduced the envelope before you what's most unusual about the case not a 33 tie all 6 wanted dr that's a difference between what kind of changes they wanted they couldn't make up their mind and the commission secretary closed the hearing we ask i goes some change that 3 of them wanted or the other 3 of them wanted before i read commissioner moore i read she want to larger courtyard and light well but informed by the pretty holder nothing con the top floor could be changed i'm going to read verbatim you're welcome to follow along on the
6:00 pm
page 18 commissioner antonini i will be supportive of the project sponsor to see what commissioner moore is suggesting, however, i'm going to make a motion to take dr and approve the project with the change we'll drop the roof height of what is considered the figured out floor i guess as designated on the diagram to leveling feet i'm sorry you were ready it will be 10 feet he external height and raise the height of the windows facing the non-host north i assume commissioner borden i second that commissioner sugaya that is his complete testimony yeah. i'm going do vote against it the design is not well, it has less to do with light and air and more to do with the spanish and the rich to the rest of the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on